On Feb. 12, the Ministry of Finance announced a draft proposal for a combined housing and real-estate tax, including provisions for tax incentives for long-term ownership. The proposal says that the income made from sales of any property — exempting the sale of property for one’s personal use — should be taxed at a flat rate of 17 percent, regardless of how much profit is made on the sale.
In addition, for every year a property is owned after an initial two-year period, this amount would be reduced by 4 percent, up to a maximum reduction of 80 percent. The tax rate is halved for people who own land that is built on. Let us explore the tax incentives for long-term ownership.
First, capital gains taxation often leads to the “lock-in effect” or the “bunching effect.” Supporters of tax incentives for long-term ownership maintain that the finance ministry’s draft would mitigate, to a certain degree, these effects, and could be used to reduce property and land speculation.
Second, looking back at the history of capital gains taxation in the US, the provision of tax incentives depending on length of ownership first occurred with the Revenue Act of 1921, in which two years was set as the threshold for ownership. Between 1934 and 1941, ownership lasting one year, two years, five years and 10 years were set as the markers at which reductions in the capital gains tax of 20 percent, 40 percent, 60 percent and 70 percent respectively were given.
After this, new rules were introduced, defining ownership of one year as short-term ownership, between one year and 18 months as medium-term, and over 18 months as long-term for capital gains tax purposes. At the moment there is only one delineation — one year — distinguishing short-term from long-term. These regulations have been in place for over 90 years, and serve as a good reference.
Third, earned income depends upon a person’s ability to work over the long term, and can decrease over time due to health and age. In comparison, income from assets has a higher tax burden. Also, Article 14 of the Income Tax Act (所得稅法) provides tax breaks to individuals earning from registered stocks or bonds if they have held those stocks or bonds for one to three years.
As a result, different kinds of assets — stocks or property — have different effects on taxation. If you think that long-term ownership can promote the development and use of real estate, and that it is beneficial to society overall, then these tax incentives can still be seen as allowing horizontal equity.
Fourth, in terms of vertical equity, holding costs — such as holding tax, loan interest, renovations, repairs and maintenance costs — should be deducted from capital gains. This works in actuarial theory, but is not easy in practice. For example, with small-scale refurbishment work, very few taxpayers obtain or hold on to every receipt.
At times like these, the rational basis for tax incentives for long-term ownership ought to be decided according to taxation principles and the responsibility of the taxpayer, to avoid difficulties with the provision and verification of proof.
Finally, legislation must concentrate on taxation, with tax exemptions being the exception. When legislators want to introduce tax incentives, they ought to first consider whether the desired policy objectives are strong enough to warrant violating the ability to pay principle. If they are not, they are likely to be found unconstitutional.
Yuan Yi-hsin is an associate professor at the Graduate School of Science and Technology Law at National Yunlin University of Science and Technology.
Translated by Paul Cooper
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS